The First Amendment of the United States Constitution grants citizens, and non-citizens, of the United States the freedom of religion, freedom of the media, freedom of assembly or petition, and freedom of speech (Constitution). While all of these freedoms are great, is there a need to place limitations upon them? Is censorship needed to ensure that Americans live in a slander and libel free society? Placing limitations on, or censoring, free speech is unethical towards Americans.
Censoring speech is not a good thing. If speech is censored, the government takes more control of our lives. If Americans are unable to say certain things then the government controls the country outright. The government of the United States of America allows Americans the freedom of speech, for them to take it away would be irreverent. To begin with, it is not for the government to decide to give citizens freedom of speech because it is a basic human right. Everyone was born with vocal chords and mouths to speak through, it is not for the government to decide what people can and cannot say. To silence a person for their beliefs is just downright wrong. If they truly believe in something they should be granted freedom to speak their mind. The key word is truly.
Slander and libel are in ways the demonstration of free speech but also the enemies of free speech in America. Slander is the defamation of a person’s reputation through spoken word while libel is through published works. Defaming someone is considered slander or libel only if the person making the statement knows what they are saying is not completely true. As I mentioned before, if the person truly believes in something then they should be able to speak freely. Slander and libel do not fall under this qualification. An example of slander would be to call someone gay even if you know for a fact that they have a girlfriend and are heterosexual. You know that this person is completely heterosexual yet you classify them as a homosexual. If you do not know that this person is heterosexual and call a person gay then it is not considered slander because you did not know better. It is slander because it is defaming someone for something that is not true. What the Constitution grants Americans is freedom of speech. It does not grant Americans the freedom from insult. Americans cannot depend on the government to fight their everyday battles. If someone makes fun of another person then it is their situation to deal with. The government is not in place to fight everyday battles for its citizens. Americans are able to say whatever they like and the government is unable to act on them. While the government cannot step in, a place of employment can punish based on their own ideals.
Besides slander and libel, it is not okay to yell “Fire” in a crowded theater. The reasoning behind it being wrong is that it causes a widespread panic. If you are in a theater with only a few people and yell “fire” then it is not a big deal. The few people in there may leave but there will not be a large struggle. Yelling it in a theater is very different. A situation in 1913 proves this. The Italian Hall in Michigan was holding a Christmas party on Christmas Eve. During this party someone yelled, “Fire.” Mass panic ensued and it led to the deaths of 73 party goers (The Italian Hall Story). The person who yelled “fire” is unknown but they were out of line with the First Amendment. They caused a panic which killed 73 people and that is not what freedom of speech is intended for. The intent of this right is for people to be able to speak their mind and not to cause panic. Situations like this can be avoided if Americans would use a little common sense and not be idiots.
Although there are instances like this the positives of free speech outweigh the negatives. Free speech allows us to call out wrongdoings within the government. This keeps politicians in check. If we were all just followers of political figures then they could get away with anything. Freedom of speech allows us to doubt. One of the best examples of freedom of speech right now is what is said on The Glenn Beck Program. He is one of the biggest doubters of the Obama Administration. A majority of news networks are controlled by liberals with Fox News being the only major network focused on conservative ideals. Without Fox News and Glenn Beck the entire United States would be getting news that favors liberals and looks down on conservatives. This freedom of the media is especially important. With liberals currently in office, they would control all of the news sources without Fox News. Because of the First Amendment, Fox News can coexist with the other networks and provide a different news experience.
What it comes down to is free speech is necessary for the well being of not only America but mankind. Without allowing free speech, those in power could do whatever they please. There are the setbacks that are libel and slander but they come with the territory. The Constitution states that Americans have the freedom of speech so that is what Americans get. It does not go into detail with what is not allowed it only states what is allowed. After all, what the Constitution says is supreme law in the United States. Americans who want to place restrictions on free speech need to realize that once something is censored then it becomes easier to censor even more things. Even if free speech has its flaws it is still a whole lot better than restricted speech.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Should Barack Obama be Impeached?
Barack Obama may not be the answer for what the country needs right now. He could be part of a solution but he is not leadership material. What follows is a proposal for the impeachment of Barack Obama.
I hereby propose the impeachment of the President of the United States of America Barack Hussein Obama II on grounds of treason, fraud, and endangerment of the United States Constitution. Grounds for impeachment, according to the Constitution, are for the breaking of any crime or misdemeanor. Under these conditions, Barack Hussein Obama II will be removed of his presidency and will never be able to hold public office in the United States again. These are more than just wild accusations thrown out by the far right. Support has been shown by representatives in government and facts back my support. Barack Obama has failed to provide an official birth certificate proving that he is a natural born citizen of the United States; he supports the Copenhagen Treaty which, under certain circumstances, can and will bypass the Constitution. He is also supporting efforts that are leading the United States of America away from capitalism and towards socialism.
Barack Obama needs to be removed from office to save America. Capitalism has worked in the United States since it was founded in 1776. One instance where it struggled was The Great Depression. The depression was not the fault of the United States, but the fault of irresponsible speculators and the free spending attitude of the 1920’s that caused the stock market bubble to eventually burst on October 29, 1929. On that day stocks went into a free fall and people went into a panic and began selling stocks wildly and without reserve. What got the country and the world out of the Great Depression was the outbreak of World War II. World War II got America out of the depression by offering jobs in manufacturing to aid in the war. Some may believe that The New Deal initiatives, proposed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt were the catalyst that got the country out of the depression but this is false. The New Deal was a set of programs that incorporated socialism into the countries’ economic make-up. Social Security, one of the programs set up by The New Deal, is about to become bankrupt. This socialistic program is struggling to last more than 70 years in this country when capitalism has lasted 233 years. To clarify, socialism is an economic policy that is for the people. It is for the people in the sense that it provides services to help citizens out. It taxes the rich and gives to the poor, emphasizing equality for all citizens monetarily wise. Barack Obama has stated that Roosevelt is a person he idolizes as well as his socialist New Deal initiatives. He is developing his own New Deal with programs that he is attempting to bring about to solve the present financial crisis. By pressing nationalized health care through congress and taking over General Motors and making it a government run company, he is doing a good job of moving the country towards socialism. Sweden, one of the most socialist countries in the world, refuses to bail out Saab, one of its struggling automakers. Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt goes on to say, “The Swedish state is not prepared to own car factories” (Beck 9). One of the world’s most socialist countries is unwilling to buyout an automaker, yet the United States will. Pushing the country down a socialist path is harmful towards the long-term well being of the United States. So to recap, President Obama idolizes Franklin Roosevelt and his economic policies. He is attempting to mirror what Roosevelt did in today’s society. Obama is hoping that his plans work where Roosevelt’s did not. Had World War II never occurred, Roosevelt could have made the country even worse.
Another reason why Barack Obama needs to be impeached is that he may not be a natural born citizen of the United States. The constitution states that being a natural born citizen is a requirement for president, “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” (Constitution). Barack Obama has provided a certificate of live birth. Although he has provided this document, a certificate of live birth is not a legal document. In order to be President of the United States you need an official birth certificate; legal proof that you are a natural born citizen on the United States. The process to receive a certification of live birth is not as strenuous as a birth certificate. His mother could have easily gotten him one within the year he was born, as the state of Hawaii allows. Even if he is a natural born citizen of the United States, why has he been unable to provide a legal document justifying his birth in Hawaii? Several politicians have been joining the movement for Barack Obama to make his official birth certificate public. Republican representative of Georgia was asked about the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s birth certificate and responded, “I am joining several of my colleagues in the House in writing a letter to the President asking that he release a copy of his birth certificate so we can have an answer to this question” (Galloway). The movement for Obama to provide a legitimate birth certificate has evolved from conservative supporters to elected officials. The location on Obama’s birth is all just speculation, but even so why is he so reluctant to provide proof? It seems as if he is trying to hide something, yet no one can be sure.
ACORN is a community organizing association set up to help aid people in need. Barack Obama acts as if he is not concerned with the legal trouble that ACORN is going through by saying, "Frankly, it's not something I've followed closely” (Fund). It is odd that he is not following it when ACORN is the association in which his career was jumpstarted. He was ACORN’s lawyer seeking to approve the Motor Voter law that ACORN later exploited for votes (Fund). Obama won that case for ACORN which later took advantage of the law. This makes Obama guilty by association. Had he never acted as lawyer on the law it may have never passed. ACORN also was caught with hundreds of thousands of fraudulent voter submissions for the 2008 election in which Barack Obama won (Fessler). Now these fraudulent voter registrations were void after the scandal, but there could have been more fraudulent voter submissions that were not caught. These counts of voter fraud showed up primarily in swing states the Barack Obama won. It seems to be more than just a coincidence that the organization that Barack Obama helped out so much in the past is the same organization that is accused for voter fraud the same year Barack Obama runs for President.
Barack Obama has performed and may in the future perform acts of treason against the United States of America. By signing an executive order to close the Guantanamo Bay prison facilities he is placing homeland security at risk. Terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay may be set free back into their country or even the United States. The closing of this high security facility is a danger to the wellbeing of the country. By signing an executive order this is hereby treason. Obama made the decision on his own, bypassing all of the other branches of Government. He went against the constitution and avoided legislation to get his agenda passed and put into motion. On other grounds of treason, he may soon sign the Copenhagen Treaty, which will bypass the constitution and set up a world government.
The proposition for impeachment is not as much based on the decisions that Barack Obama has made but based upon proposals that he is showing support for. The universal health care bill has yet to pass but it is being lead in support by Barack Obama. Some of the things that he has already approved though are dangerous for the country, such as the takeover of General Motors, economic stimulus bills, and the closing of Guantanamo Bay. Another decision that he may make that can be hazardous to the country that was mentioned before is the Copenhagen Treaty. He cannot be impeached for flirting with the Copenhagen Treaty but if he indeed signs it, the treaty can be the end of American sovereignty. There is no proof that Obama will sign this treaty. Even if he signs the treaty, the process proceeds to congress and needs to be ratified with a two thirds vote. It seems unlikely that he will be able to get a two thirds vote in congress, but he can bypass this with a loophole. He can make the treaty a domestic law by simply getting a majority in both the senate and congress (Monckton). Barack Obama is not above going around the system in order to get his way. If he were to do this we would be in danger of Obama becoming a dictator. Harsh words but this is America’s sovereignty that is being discussed.
Barack Obama may not deserve to be impeached right now. He has only been president for ten months and that may not be enough time to adequately judge him as a president. But as long as Obama is in office the country is in danger of losing its international freedoms. Some of his decisions have already been questionable and he is linked to other ideas that can be even worse for the country. The grounds for Obama’s impeachment may not be the most traditional in the sense of the literal definition of impeachment but it is just as necessary. However, if he does have anything to do with the criminal activities in ACORN then he could be impeached on felony charges. Obama’s time spent in office has been just as unproductive as the administration that he has replaced. Expectations were high for Obama and he has yet to meet any of them. In order for America to become one of the worlds’ leading powers again we need a leader that is devoted to The Constitution.
I hereby propose the impeachment of the President of the United States of America Barack Hussein Obama II on grounds of treason, fraud, and endangerment of the United States Constitution. Grounds for impeachment, according to the Constitution, are for the breaking of any crime or misdemeanor. Under these conditions, Barack Hussein Obama II will be removed of his presidency and will never be able to hold public office in the United States again. These are more than just wild accusations thrown out by the far right. Support has been shown by representatives in government and facts back my support. Barack Obama has failed to provide an official birth certificate proving that he is a natural born citizen of the United States; he supports the Copenhagen Treaty which, under certain circumstances, can and will bypass the Constitution. He is also supporting efforts that are leading the United States of America away from capitalism and towards socialism.
Barack Obama needs to be removed from office to save America. Capitalism has worked in the United States since it was founded in 1776. One instance where it struggled was The Great Depression. The depression was not the fault of the United States, but the fault of irresponsible speculators and the free spending attitude of the 1920’s that caused the stock market bubble to eventually burst on October 29, 1929. On that day stocks went into a free fall and people went into a panic and began selling stocks wildly and without reserve. What got the country and the world out of the Great Depression was the outbreak of World War II. World War II got America out of the depression by offering jobs in manufacturing to aid in the war. Some may believe that The New Deal initiatives, proposed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt were the catalyst that got the country out of the depression but this is false. The New Deal was a set of programs that incorporated socialism into the countries’ economic make-up. Social Security, one of the programs set up by The New Deal, is about to become bankrupt. This socialistic program is struggling to last more than 70 years in this country when capitalism has lasted 233 years. To clarify, socialism is an economic policy that is for the people. It is for the people in the sense that it provides services to help citizens out. It taxes the rich and gives to the poor, emphasizing equality for all citizens monetarily wise. Barack Obama has stated that Roosevelt is a person he idolizes as well as his socialist New Deal initiatives. He is developing his own New Deal with programs that he is attempting to bring about to solve the present financial crisis. By pressing nationalized health care through congress and taking over General Motors and making it a government run company, he is doing a good job of moving the country towards socialism. Sweden, one of the most socialist countries in the world, refuses to bail out Saab, one of its struggling automakers. Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt goes on to say, “The Swedish state is not prepared to own car factories” (Beck 9). One of the world’s most socialist countries is unwilling to buyout an automaker, yet the United States will. Pushing the country down a socialist path is harmful towards the long-term well being of the United States. So to recap, President Obama idolizes Franklin Roosevelt and his economic policies. He is attempting to mirror what Roosevelt did in today’s society. Obama is hoping that his plans work where Roosevelt’s did not. Had World War II never occurred, Roosevelt could have made the country even worse.
Another reason why Barack Obama needs to be impeached is that he may not be a natural born citizen of the United States. The constitution states that being a natural born citizen is a requirement for president, “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” (Constitution). Barack Obama has provided a certificate of live birth. Although he has provided this document, a certificate of live birth is not a legal document. In order to be President of the United States you need an official birth certificate; legal proof that you are a natural born citizen on the United States. The process to receive a certification of live birth is not as strenuous as a birth certificate. His mother could have easily gotten him one within the year he was born, as the state of Hawaii allows. Even if he is a natural born citizen of the United States, why has he been unable to provide a legal document justifying his birth in Hawaii? Several politicians have been joining the movement for Barack Obama to make his official birth certificate public. Republican representative of Georgia was asked about the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s birth certificate and responded, “I am joining several of my colleagues in the House in writing a letter to the President asking that he release a copy of his birth certificate so we can have an answer to this question” (Galloway). The movement for Obama to provide a legitimate birth certificate has evolved from conservative supporters to elected officials. The location on Obama’s birth is all just speculation, but even so why is he so reluctant to provide proof? It seems as if he is trying to hide something, yet no one can be sure.
ACORN is a community organizing association set up to help aid people in need. Barack Obama acts as if he is not concerned with the legal trouble that ACORN is going through by saying, "Frankly, it's not something I've followed closely” (Fund). It is odd that he is not following it when ACORN is the association in which his career was jumpstarted. He was ACORN’s lawyer seeking to approve the Motor Voter law that ACORN later exploited for votes (Fund). Obama won that case for ACORN which later took advantage of the law. This makes Obama guilty by association. Had he never acted as lawyer on the law it may have never passed. ACORN also was caught with hundreds of thousands of fraudulent voter submissions for the 2008 election in which Barack Obama won (Fessler). Now these fraudulent voter registrations were void after the scandal, but there could have been more fraudulent voter submissions that were not caught. These counts of voter fraud showed up primarily in swing states the Barack Obama won. It seems to be more than just a coincidence that the organization that Barack Obama helped out so much in the past is the same organization that is accused for voter fraud the same year Barack Obama runs for President.
Barack Obama has performed and may in the future perform acts of treason against the United States of America. By signing an executive order to close the Guantanamo Bay prison facilities he is placing homeland security at risk. Terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay may be set free back into their country or even the United States. The closing of this high security facility is a danger to the wellbeing of the country. By signing an executive order this is hereby treason. Obama made the decision on his own, bypassing all of the other branches of Government. He went against the constitution and avoided legislation to get his agenda passed and put into motion. On other grounds of treason, he may soon sign the Copenhagen Treaty, which will bypass the constitution and set up a world government.
The proposition for impeachment is not as much based on the decisions that Barack Obama has made but based upon proposals that he is showing support for. The universal health care bill has yet to pass but it is being lead in support by Barack Obama. Some of the things that he has already approved though are dangerous for the country, such as the takeover of General Motors, economic stimulus bills, and the closing of Guantanamo Bay. Another decision that he may make that can be hazardous to the country that was mentioned before is the Copenhagen Treaty. He cannot be impeached for flirting with the Copenhagen Treaty but if he indeed signs it, the treaty can be the end of American sovereignty. There is no proof that Obama will sign this treaty. Even if he signs the treaty, the process proceeds to congress and needs to be ratified with a two thirds vote. It seems unlikely that he will be able to get a two thirds vote in congress, but he can bypass this with a loophole. He can make the treaty a domestic law by simply getting a majority in both the senate and congress (Monckton). Barack Obama is not above going around the system in order to get his way. If he were to do this we would be in danger of Obama becoming a dictator. Harsh words but this is America’s sovereignty that is being discussed.
Barack Obama may not deserve to be impeached right now. He has only been president for ten months and that may not be enough time to adequately judge him as a president. But as long as Obama is in office the country is in danger of losing its international freedoms. Some of his decisions have already been questionable and he is linked to other ideas that can be even worse for the country. The grounds for Obama’s impeachment may not be the most traditional in the sense of the literal definition of impeachment but it is just as necessary. However, if he does have anything to do with the criminal activities in ACORN then he could be impeached on felony charges. Obama’s time spent in office has been just as unproductive as the administration that he has replaced. Expectations were high for Obama and he has yet to meet any of them. In order for America to become one of the worlds’ leading powers again we need a leader that is devoted to The Constitution.
Health Care Reform: Shades of Socialism vs. Free Market Capitalism
Health Care is on its way through the legislative branch of government as we speak. Is Universal health care really a good thing? I wrote a paper on whether or not we should support the new health care bill. It is as follows...
The United States health care system is among the best in the world for those insured. If you have insurance through your place of work or through your parents then chances are that you are taken care of. Those Americans without health insurance are not so lucky. A health care reform bill is currently making its way through the government. The democrat backed bill calls for insurance for all Americans, while all republicans in office oppose the bill. While the health care bill may aid millions of Americans it will not be beneficial to the country. In reality, government run health care would cut down on our freedoms by increasing the size of government in our life, increase the price of health care, and increase the waiting time for health care.
A model for America’s new health care is the system that is in place in Canada right now. Overall the system up north is effective, but would be a downgrade from our current system. Canadians are not pleased with the waiting times to see doctors and specialists. Only twenty six percent of Canadians approve of the waiting time to see a specialist, while the rate in the United States is nearly doubled at forty seven percent (Thomma). With higher population density in the United States, the waiting time to see not only specialists but any physician would surely be longer. Although Canadians are infuriated with their wait times, sixty-five percent are pleased with the amount of access that they receive and the affordability of their access, while only forty-nine percent of Americans are pleased with the affordability of their access (Thomma). Although Canadians are more pleased, Americans are better able to get the coverage that they want or need. In Canada there is a lottery based system to determine who gets certain care. In America if you have the money then you can pay for whatever operation or medication that you need. Whenever the government steps into our personal lives it usually causes problems. Regarding the program proposed in the United States, Judd Gregg, republican senator of New Hampshire, said that the American program, “is a slippery slope to a single payer system like Canada or England have, which inevitably leads to putting a bureaucrat between you and your doctor and inevitably leads to delays, it leads to rationing.”(Thomma) With a higher population in the United States than both Canada and England there is a higher chance that rationing would occur. Rationing medicine and placing a bureaucrat between you and your health not only puts your life potentially in danger but it also cuts down on your freedoms.
Allowing the government to run your health insurance allows them to have an even larger impact on your life. Large governments are the enemies of democracy. Since Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office during the great depression, our government has expanded. Programs such as welfare, Medicare, and social security all have an impact on our lives, whether we benefit from these programs or pay taxes so others can benefit from them. These programs are run by the government, which will also run our universal health care system. What is so troubling about the government controlling these programs is that it shows that we are moving towards socialism. General Motors was bought out by the government earlier this year, another institution now owned by the government. Another government in history was run the way that our government is turning towards. In the early 1930s Germany was being run by the National Socialist German Workers Party. This party supported the people. They controlled the automakers, provided welfare for the poor, and had universal health care. They promised change for impoverished Germany. This party was better known as the Nazi party and was led by Adolf Hitler. What is separating the United States to a government system comparable to Nazi Germany is universal health care, and a dictator. As the size of the government increases the citizens freedom decreases. If universal health care goes through Americans are no longer left with the freedom to choose our own personal health care. President Obama promises Americans that they are able to keep their current health care. This is not true. To begin with, it is not the governments’ job to allow Americans to choose their health care, it is already a freedom. In the new bill you will not be able to keep your health insurance permanently. Most Americans collect health insurance through small business. Under the bill you are able to keep your existing insurance as long as you have it before the bill is passed. This sounds fair, but the government has something up its sleeve. If your existing plan changes after the bill takes effect then you must change to the government option, so much for the free market (Tully). Obama has continually promised Americans that they can keep their coverage, but by the way the bill is put it sounds differently. What kind of leader would lie to his people? I can think of one.
Those in support of the health care bill cite the 46 million Americans without health insurance as means enough to pass legislation. 46 million people is a lot of people, nearly one in every six Americans is without health insurance according to this statistic. What is so great about this statistic is that it is misleading. Sure 46 million Americans are without health care, but up to nine million of those are illegal immigrants. Another 18 million make enough money in a year that they would be able to afford health insurance but refuse to get it. Also, the statistic of 46 million includes citizens that were without health insurance for only one month out of the year due to changing jobs or other factors. Through deduction, we can say that around 20 million are left uninsured. Fourteen million Americans also qualify for government programs already in place but do not take advantage of the programs. Some of these categories may overlap but the figure is likely to be around eight million, not forty-six million (Klein). Under the new bill you will be forced to pay the same price for care regardless of your condition. Whether you are a 24 year old marathon runner or a 29 year old alcoholic chain smoker, your premium will be the same. You will not be rewarded for healthy lifestyle choices that some health insurance companies currently offer. Younger and healthier Americans are going to be paying the same price as older unhealthy Americans. It is not fair to the struggling college student who has to pay more for care so the older retiree collecting social security can receive a discount. The cost to take care of a younger healthier person is a lot less than the cost to maintain an older American.
After all is said and done it would be best for the United States to keep the current health care system. Freedom needs to be retained. We should not sacrifice the freedom that we have for health care security. In the words of the great Benjamin Franklin, “Any society that would give up a little liberty for a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” How Franklin’s quote can be applied today is that once we allow the government to increase its role in our day to day lives we lose our liberty or freedom. We no longer deserve it because we now rely on the government. We rely now on our government and the security that they provide. The health care that they will provide us is not as good as what we have now, so in theory we will also lose our security. Also it is to be noted that government run programs have not always been the most efficient. Imagine waiting in line at the DMV. Every time you go to the DMV there is a line. Do you want to wait in that line to see a doctor? What it comes down to is if we should sacrifice our freedom so roughly eight million Americans can get health care. We need to ask ourselves, “What would Benjamin Franklin do?” That has already been answered, now we need to follow through on it.
The United States health care system is among the best in the world for those insured. If you have insurance through your place of work or through your parents then chances are that you are taken care of. Those Americans without health insurance are not so lucky. A health care reform bill is currently making its way through the government. The democrat backed bill calls for insurance for all Americans, while all republicans in office oppose the bill. While the health care bill may aid millions of Americans it will not be beneficial to the country. In reality, government run health care would cut down on our freedoms by increasing the size of government in our life, increase the price of health care, and increase the waiting time for health care.
A model for America’s new health care is the system that is in place in Canada right now. Overall the system up north is effective, but would be a downgrade from our current system. Canadians are not pleased with the waiting times to see doctors and specialists. Only twenty six percent of Canadians approve of the waiting time to see a specialist, while the rate in the United States is nearly doubled at forty seven percent (Thomma). With higher population density in the United States, the waiting time to see not only specialists but any physician would surely be longer. Although Canadians are infuriated with their wait times, sixty-five percent are pleased with the amount of access that they receive and the affordability of their access, while only forty-nine percent of Americans are pleased with the affordability of their access (Thomma). Although Canadians are more pleased, Americans are better able to get the coverage that they want or need. In Canada there is a lottery based system to determine who gets certain care. In America if you have the money then you can pay for whatever operation or medication that you need. Whenever the government steps into our personal lives it usually causes problems. Regarding the program proposed in the United States, Judd Gregg, republican senator of New Hampshire, said that the American program, “is a slippery slope to a single payer system like Canada or England have, which inevitably leads to putting a bureaucrat between you and your doctor and inevitably leads to delays, it leads to rationing.”(Thomma) With a higher population in the United States than both Canada and England there is a higher chance that rationing would occur. Rationing medicine and placing a bureaucrat between you and your health not only puts your life potentially in danger but it also cuts down on your freedoms.
Allowing the government to run your health insurance allows them to have an even larger impact on your life. Large governments are the enemies of democracy. Since Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office during the great depression, our government has expanded. Programs such as welfare, Medicare, and social security all have an impact on our lives, whether we benefit from these programs or pay taxes so others can benefit from them. These programs are run by the government, which will also run our universal health care system. What is so troubling about the government controlling these programs is that it shows that we are moving towards socialism. General Motors was bought out by the government earlier this year, another institution now owned by the government. Another government in history was run the way that our government is turning towards. In the early 1930s Germany was being run by the National Socialist German Workers Party. This party supported the people. They controlled the automakers, provided welfare for the poor, and had universal health care. They promised change for impoverished Germany. This party was better known as the Nazi party and was led by Adolf Hitler. What is separating the United States to a government system comparable to Nazi Germany is universal health care, and a dictator. As the size of the government increases the citizens freedom decreases. If universal health care goes through Americans are no longer left with the freedom to choose our own personal health care. President Obama promises Americans that they are able to keep their current health care. This is not true. To begin with, it is not the governments’ job to allow Americans to choose their health care, it is already a freedom. In the new bill you will not be able to keep your health insurance permanently. Most Americans collect health insurance through small business. Under the bill you are able to keep your existing insurance as long as you have it before the bill is passed. This sounds fair, but the government has something up its sleeve. If your existing plan changes after the bill takes effect then you must change to the government option, so much for the free market (Tully). Obama has continually promised Americans that they can keep their coverage, but by the way the bill is put it sounds differently. What kind of leader would lie to his people? I can think of one.
Those in support of the health care bill cite the 46 million Americans without health insurance as means enough to pass legislation. 46 million people is a lot of people, nearly one in every six Americans is without health insurance according to this statistic. What is so great about this statistic is that it is misleading. Sure 46 million Americans are without health care, but up to nine million of those are illegal immigrants. Another 18 million make enough money in a year that they would be able to afford health insurance but refuse to get it. Also, the statistic of 46 million includes citizens that were without health insurance for only one month out of the year due to changing jobs or other factors. Through deduction, we can say that around 20 million are left uninsured. Fourteen million Americans also qualify for government programs already in place but do not take advantage of the programs. Some of these categories may overlap but the figure is likely to be around eight million, not forty-six million (Klein). Under the new bill you will be forced to pay the same price for care regardless of your condition. Whether you are a 24 year old marathon runner or a 29 year old alcoholic chain smoker, your premium will be the same. You will not be rewarded for healthy lifestyle choices that some health insurance companies currently offer. Younger and healthier Americans are going to be paying the same price as older unhealthy Americans. It is not fair to the struggling college student who has to pay more for care so the older retiree collecting social security can receive a discount. The cost to take care of a younger healthier person is a lot less than the cost to maintain an older American.
After all is said and done it would be best for the United States to keep the current health care system. Freedom needs to be retained. We should not sacrifice the freedom that we have for health care security. In the words of the great Benjamin Franklin, “Any society that would give up a little liberty for a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” How Franklin’s quote can be applied today is that once we allow the government to increase its role in our day to day lives we lose our liberty or freedom. We no longer deserve it because we now rely on the government. We rely now on our government and the security that they provide. The health care that they will provide us is not as good as what we have now, so in theory we will also lose our security. Also it is to be noted that government run programs have not always been the most efficient. Imagine waiting in line at the DMV. Every time you go to the DMV there is a line. Do you want to wait in that line to see a doctor? What it comes down to is if we should sacrifice our freedom so roughly eight million Americans can get health care. We need to ask ourselves, “What would Benjamin Franklin do?” That has already been answered, now we need to follow through on it.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Should Fighting be Regulated More in Hockey?
Fighting has always been a part of the NHL and all of hockey. It is one of the longest running traditions in the game. Eliminating fighting in the NHL would be like taking flour out of a cake recipe; it just doesn’t work out. Fighting, believe it or not, protects players, sends a message, or can change momentum in a game.
Fighting protects the star players on every team. Enforcers on teams will usually only play a few shifts per game but can be one of the most valuable players on a team. Their job on the team is to protect the star players. Just by an enforcer being on a team, the opposing teams will not hit the superstars as much. The other team just has to look at the end of the bench and will think twice before taking liberties on superstars. There is something about seeing a six and a half foot giant of a man staring at you that will make you think twice about doing anything.
One of the major problems going on in the NHL right now is fights taking place after clean hits. This can be a big problem. Fights are usually justifiable whenever they occur after cheap shots. Whenever a clean, but hard, hit is administered there has been a trend that fights have followed. This is not good for the NHL. It gives the league a bad reputation for harboring loose cannons. Fighting in the middle of a play like this can also be a disadvantage for your team. When a fight breaks out, the play is whistled dead regardless of if you had a scoring chance or not. Because you have decided to fight your team has given up a crucial scoring chance. Although you have decided to send a message by fighting, scoring a goal would be sending an even greater message.
In defense of fighting, it can be a game breaker in a positive way. A fight can change the momentum of the game in your favor. The Pittsburgh Penguins were losing 3-0 to the Philadelphia Flyers in the 2009 NHL Playoffs. During the second period of the game Max Talbot of the Penguins started a fight with Daniel Carcillo of the Flyers. Talbot lost the fight, but the Penguins won the game due to the momentum shift that started with Talbot fighting Carcillo. Within a minute of the fight ending the Penguins scored their first goal of the game. It would have been best for the Flyers if Carcillo would have just backed off and refused the fight, it being alright because there was no reason to fight. He fought only to please the fans. It was a typical move by the Flyers.
Fighting in the NHL needs to be regulated by reducing the amounts of fights after clean hits. Fighting does protect players but is unnecessary in certain situations. The NHL needs to define when fights are permitted. Fights for clean hits need to be regulated more by giving a penalty to the player who starts the fight. This would allow for the game to flow better and punish players for fighting for all the wrong reasons.
Fighting protects the star players on every team. Enforcers on teams will usually only play a few shifts per game but can be one of the most valuable players on a team. Their job on the team is to protect the star players. Just by an enforcer being on a team, the opposing teams will not hit the superstars as much. The other team just has to look at the end of the bench and will think twice before taking liberties on superstars. There is something about seeing a six and a half foot giant of a man staring at you that will make you think twice about doing anything.
One of the major problems going on in the NHL right now is fights taking place after clean hits. This can be a big problem. Fights are usually justifiable whenever they occur after cheap shots. Whenever a clean, but hard, hit is administered there has been a trend that fights have followed. This is not good for the NHL. It gives the league a bad reputation for harboring loose cannons. Fighting in the middle of a play like this can also be a disadvantage for your team. When a fight breaks out, the play is whistled dead regardless of if you had a scoring chance or not. Because you have decided to fight your team has given up a crucial scoring chance. Although you have decided to send a message by fighting, scoring a goal would be sending an even greater message.
In defense of fighting, it can be a game breaker in a positive way. A fight can change the momentum of the game in your favor. The Pittsburgh Penguins were losing 3-0 to the Philadelphia Flyers in the 2009 NHL Playoffs. During the second period of the game Max Talbot of the Penguins started a fight with Daniel Carcillo of the Flyers. Talbot lost the fight, but the Penguins won the game due to the momentum shift that started with Talbot fighting Carcillo. Within a minute of the fight ending the Penguins scored their first goal of the game. It would have been best for the Flyers if Carcillo would have just backed off and refused the fight, it being alright because there was no reason to fight. He fought only to please the fans. It was a typical move by the Flyers.
Fighting in the NHL needs to be regulated by reducing the amounts of fights after clean hits. Fighting does protect players but is unnecessary in certain situations. The NHL needs to define when fights are permitted. Fights for clean hits need to be regulated more by giving a penalty to the player who starts the fight. This would allow for the game to flow better and punish players for fighting for all the wrong reasons.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
busy, busy, busy...
I've been really busy as of late and haven't had time to post anything. As a consolation, here is an awesome video I made to commemorate the start of the 3rd round of the Stanley Cup Playoffs. A highlight video of the first 2 rounds set to Hanging By A Moment by Lifehouse.
The quality of the video isn't all that great, but it was all I could do with the tools provided. While talking about the Stanley Cup Playoffs, what series' we have ahead of ourselves. First off, in the West, we have an original 6 match-up between the Detroit Red Wings and Chicago Blackhawks. The Red Wings, led by skilled forwards Pavel Datsyuk, Henrik Zetterburg, and Marian Hossa are the second seed in the West, while the Blackhawks, led by Patrick Kane, Jonathan Toews, and Martin Havlat, are the 4th seed. In an intense rematch of the Winter Classic, expect a hard fought series between these long term rivals. The Red Wings may have the advantage in experience, but the Blackhawks make up for that with a young and healthy roster. The age of the Red Wings might catch up to them before this series is done, but only time will tell. Red Wings in 6
In the East, The Carolina Hurricanes are pitted up against the Pittsburgh Penguins, the first time these teams have played each other in the playoffs. The Hurricanes are a solid offensive team, led by Eric Staal. They do not evenly match up against the Penguins up front, by any means. With Eric Staal's brother, Jordan, centering the Penguins third line, the Pens are a nightmare to matchup against. The first two lines are centered by Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin respectively, but they are really lines 1a and 1b. Defensively, the Penguins have the advantage. They have a stronger set of defensive defensemen than the Hurricanes do. Evgeni Malkin will be the difference maker in this series. If Malkin can exploit the second defensive pairing of Carolina then the Penguins will be able to win this series. The Hurricanes may be outmatched up front, but the Hurricanes have the advantage in net. Both teams are defended by young goaltenders, the difference is that Cam Ward has won the Stanley Cup in his only cup appearence, while Marc-Andre Fleury lost in the Cup Finals last year. Cam Ward has yet to lose a playoff series in his young career, but the Penguins hope to end that. Penguins in 5
The quality of the video isn't all that great, but it was all I could do with the tools provided. While talking about the Stanley Cup Playoffs, what series' we have ahead of ourselves. First off, in the West, we have an original 6 match-up between the Detroit Red Wings and Chicago Blackhawks. The Red Wings, led by skilled forwards Pavel Datsyuk, Henrik Zetterburg, and Marian Hossa are the second seed in the West, while the Blackhawks, led by Patrick Kane, Jonathan Toews, and Martin Havlat, are the 4th seed. In an intense rematch of the Winter Classic, expect a hard fought series between these long term rivals. The Red Wings may have the advantage in experience, but the Blackhawks make up for that with a young and healthy roster. The age of the Red Wings might catch up to them before this series is done, but only time will tell. Red Wings in 6
In the East, The Carolina Hurricanes are pitted up against the Pittsburgh Penguins, the first time these teams have played each other in the playoffs. The Hurricanes are a solid offensive team, led by Eric Staal. They do not evenly match up against the Penguins up front, by any means. With Eric Staal's brother, Jordan, centering the Penguins third line, the Pens are a nightmare to matchup against. The first two lines are centered by Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin respectively, but they are really lines 1a and 1b. Defensively, the Penguins have the advantage. They have a stronger set of defensive defensemen than the Hurricanes do. Evgeni Malkin will be the difference maker in this series. If Malkin can exploit the second defensive pairing of Carolina then the Penguins will be able to win this series. The Hurricanes may be outmatched up front, but the Hurricanes have the advantage in net. Both teams are defended by young goaltenders, the difference is that Cam Ward has won the Stanley Cup in his only cup appearence, while Marc-Andre Fleury lost in the Cup Finals last year. Cam Ward has yet to lose a playoff series in his young career, but the Penguins hope to end that. Penguins in 5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)